In a decision that could end the practice of water fluoridation in the U.S., a federal judge late Tuesday ruled that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.
This from thelibertydaily.com.
From The Defender, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California wrote in the long-awaited landmark decision:
[T]he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can no longer ignore the risk, and must take regulatory action.
More than 200 million Americans drink water treated with fluoride at the “optimal” level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L). However, Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence shows this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.
The verdict delivers a major blow to the EPA, public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and professional lobbying groups like the American Dental Association (ADA), which have staked their reputations on the claim that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century and an unqualified public good.
Fluoride proponents refused to reexamine that stance despite mounting scientific evidence from top researchers and government agencies of fluoride’s neurotoxic risks, particularly for infants’ developing brains.
Instead, they attempted to weaken and suppress the research and discredit the scientists carrying it out.
Rick North, board member of Fluoride Action Network, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told The Defender:
What’s false is the CDC claiming that fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century.
What’s true is that ending fluoridation will be one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 21st century.
Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, said:
The judge did what EPA has long refused to do, and that is to apply the EPA standard risk assessment framework to fluoride.
In so doing, the court has shown that the widespread exposure to fluoride that we now have in the United States is unreasonably and precariously close to the levels that we know cause harm.
The EPA can appeal Tuesday’s decision. The agency told The Defender it is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the EPA in the lawsuit, also said it has no comment.
The ruling concludes a historic lawsuit—one that has dragged on for seven years—brought against the EPA by environmental and consumer advocacy organizations like the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children.
Chen’s 80-page ruling, issued six months after closing arguments in February, offers a careful and detailed articulation of the EPA’s review process for chemicals that pose a hazard to human health and evaluates and summarizes the extensive scientific data presented at trial.
Chen wrote:
EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level.
He cited a key report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP), which undertook a systematic review of all available scientific research at the time of publication.
Chen wrote:
[The report] concluded that fluoride is indeed associated with reduced IQ in children, at least at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg/L.
Further:
[The NTP also reported that although there are technical challenges to measuring fluoride’s toxic effects at low levels], scientists have observed a statistically significant association between fluoride and adverse effects in children even at such ‘lower’ exposure levels.
Chen concluded:
Under even the most conservative estimates of this level, there is not enough of a margin between the accepted hazard level and the actual human exposure levels to find that fluoride is safe.
Simply put, the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA under Amended TSCA.
The law dictates that the EPA must take regulatory action, but it does not specify what that action has to be. EPA regulatory actions can range from notifying the public of risks to banning chemicals.
Philippe Grandjean, M.D., Ph.D., adjunct professor in environmental health at Harvard and chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, top researcher on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and expert witness for plaintiffs in the case told The Defender he thought the court’s decision was “well-justified.”
Dr, Grandjean said:
[T]he ruling made it incumbent on the EPA to go beyond simply ending water fluoridation.
Further:
EPA will have to consider what to do in the southwestern parts of the country where the fluoride content of groundwater is too high due to minerals in the soil containing fluoride.
And then there is the question about ingestion of toothpaste.
Michael Connett said:
Congress created the citizen petition provision in TSCA as a counterweight to bureaucratic lethargy and as a check on the EPA.
The statute is a powerful tool for overcoming politicized science.
Further:
When science becomes fossilized in political inertia, the citizen petition provision of TSCA is a very powerful tool for citizens.
Through this case, we have been able to, I think we’ve been able to effectuate what Congress had envisioned with this part of the statute.
Final thought: With RFK Jr. heading up smart health care and the wellbeing for all Americans, We the People can expect many more similar decisions to be reached and to be acted upon during the next Trump administration.
